File: 1341830456588.jpg (35.33 KB, 300x300)
Anonymous (a78e) 18509
File: 1341836762718.jpg (22.61 KB, 482x564)
I've always felt she deserved it in many respects.
She knew eddie was unstable and was warned about him explicitly by blake and yet she chose to stick around him even after seeing him with those cocaine fiends.
Numerous warnings, numerous oppurtunites to walk away and yet she stuck around. Her naievity really showec through in respect of this it her callowness culminates in her being tied to a bed as some pseudo-slavechild-saviour to eddies ills.
Also is eddie a really good hairdresser or did he bring chloe to a barber or something. What kind of barber would perform that service.
Anonymous (5fd6) 18510
See, this is exactly the kind of crap I have been talking about earlier and the reason why young teenagers at this age should not be having sex.
Firstly, they have no real grasp of the consequenses or of their own actions or implied body language - they are still kids (and so is Luli) trying to learn and cope with all the new changes that puberty is bringing along.
Secondly, only a damn rapist would say "She asked for it by doing X or wearing Y…". How can you even say things like that?
I don't care if some 13 year old girl came up to me butt naked and told me to give it to her… Thats when you should wrap your coat around her and tell her, this is not right and then send her back to her parents… You don't just take advantage of a child like that.
That is why they are still children and we are the adults (or atleast some of us in here, I guess).
Anonymous (a78e) 18511
I didn't say she asked for it I said she seemed incredibly stupid in her actions and by extension deserved something drastic occuring to jig her out of the cycle of stupidity.
She should have learned like a normal person ie after the umpteenth instance where it was patently obvious that eddie was a nutjob and came to the natural logical conclusion that she should probably just part ways with the guy. Instead she stuck around like some slack jawed yokel and as such paid with her innocence.
She didn't ask for it but she sure as shit deserved it by virtue of the repeated stupidity of her actions.
You either learn yoyur lessons the normal way or endure undue hardships that could have easily been avoided had some common sense been applied to the situation.
File: 1341841313804.jpg (111.58 KB, 960x854)
The films script was altered. Chloë's family was bitching about it so they've deleted the part she really got raped.
Too bad. I would love to see Chloë doing a more sexual scene to use her acting skills to make us feel the drama, like Jennifer Lawrence did in Poker House. That scene was shocking.
Anonymous (a78e) 18513
Im pretty sure she was 13 while filming hick.
That would be kind of inappropriate. Im glad they did it as they did.
Reno Justin (4952) 18514
File: 1341841864973.png (466.29 KB, 725x320)
It's definitely a touchy subject to say the least. While I, for one, don't like the thought of it happening to our Chloe; people need to differentiate real life from movies. I'm quite sure both Chloe and her family would have declined to participate in this movie if they had a problem with it. The fact that Chloe is able to take on such a wide range of characters and situations is proof of her professionalism. Every time a 'controversial' plot twist such as this is used you can bet a whole lot of people will be offended and decry the situation on some moral ground. My point is, live and let live. You will always have those types of people just as you will always have the Elite ChloBros like us who are mature enough to understand that movies aren't real life. Personally I think it is really awesome to see a talented young lady that can be so convincing in any role she plays. Keep the faith fellow ChloBro. As the old saying goes: Haters gonna hate! lol
File: 1341842177104.png (61.06 KB, 151x177)
Then you don't know shit about movies.
File: 1341842322675.jpg (41.2 KB, 500x583)
>Too bad. I would love to see Chloë doing a more sexual scene so I could fap over it furiously.
We all know what you're about Chloefornication
Anonymous (a78e) 18524
File: 1341843087689.gif (2.66 MB, 400x353)
Is asking for it and deserving it for repeatedly being an idiot not two seperate cases.
I see it that way.
Reno Justin (4952) 18525
File: 1341843190125.png (249.57 KB, 398x550)
everybody arguing on ChloBro
File: 1341843256234.png (252.46 KB, 470x324)
Movies are made to tell stories. Actors are tools. Tools used to show us the stories the director/screenwriter wants to tell. A good actor is the actor who knows he's just a tool to connect the public with the character.
If you start thinking like you're doing then 99% of the movies out there would never have been made. Showing people killing each other is innapropriate. Showing a 11 years old girl killing adults is innapropriate. Showing a possessed 12 years old girl saying things like "Fuck me" and "Your mother sucks cocks in hell" is innapropriate and bla bla bla.
Good actors, even young ones, are not afraid of doing these scenes for the role. It's not about age. It's about telling a story.
Chloë is a great actress and I think she can handle a rape scene pretty well. Actually, I'm 100% sure she can do it. It's an intense scene and it would make her much more experienced as an young actress.
It's all about the story you want to tell and not about the actors. I hope you understand now.
Anonymous (0b1a) 18527
File: 1341843525381.jpg (89.53 KB, 640x496)
Nobody EVER deserves to be raped.
I am sorry to say so, but if you think a 13 year old girl deserves it, even if she is not learning from her mistakes - then you are pretty screwed up in your mind.
Reno Justin (4952) 18528
File: 1341843693844.jpg (72.54 KB, 500x500)
So you just called Chloe a tool…dude wtf…>mfw
Just givin ya crap bro, i know what youre saying! lmfao
File: 1341843743971.jpg (17.54 KB, 320x272)
>>18527>Nobody EVER deserves to be raped
I'm pretty sure I deserve to be raped by Chloë.
File: 1341843880852.png (249.92 KB, 367x324)
It's not rape if you want it, silly.
Anonymous (a78e) 18532
So do you think it would be fair game to openly have child actors naked on a screens in situations of simulated rape.
If you normalise that type of thing on screen then it makes it 'seem' less criminal off screen. Degredation of morals on all that lark.
I just don't think it healthy or appropriate for a young child to be put in situation, willingly or not that could potentially compromise said childs innocence. I think its best we avoid prurience with regard to children be that on screen or off. There has to boundarys at some point that aren't crossed and I feel this is one of them.
I thought the way they approached it in hick was ideal, doing as you suggested could have developed a crude and seedy undertone to the movie which would have been unduely unsavoury.
If the family changed the script, I believe that was the best choice because of anybody out there they would have her best intrests to heart.
File: 1341844344494.png (100.26 KB, 404x404)
>>18532>then it makes it 'seem' less criminal off screen. Degredation of morals on all that lark
Movies are just movies. Deal with it. And we are not talking about child abuse. A child is far from being mature enough to tell the difference between a movie and reality (with a few exceptions).
We are talking about teenage actors doing dramatic scenes, including rape scenes.
Anonymous (a78e) 18535
How do you propose she should have learned her lesson then because she was doing a shit job of learning it like a normal person.
Luli as a character barely seemed to be affected by the rape at all leading me to believe that even that most harsh, brutal and intrusive of acts failed to make her change for better or worse. This I feel is a major failing point of the movie. The rape did not have enough of a reformative or destructive effect of the character.
Anonymous (3c12) 18536
File: 1341844672857.jpg (3.06 MB, 2771x3029)
I understand where you are coming from but the fact is we live in a society that is extremely paranoid about childhood sexuality, it is the most taboo of all subjectss. In the world we live in there are plenty of 13 year old girls who are blooming sexually and exploring the power of(as well as learning the horrible dangers of) their sexuality.
Anonymous (a78e) 18537
So if a child is willing to do cp is it ok. Should we just say that is ok too by the same principles. Some people need figures of authority to step in and dictate tpo them what is ok and what is not, otherwise then might go along with something for too long and eventuallu find they don't won't to continue but are in too deep to pull out, a la the luli eddie situation in hick.
Luli kept on thinking she was in a benign situation there and kept going back, eventually she was too embeded to withdraw from the situation and consequently suppposedly paid with her innocence. We need people, like chloe family in this instance to step in a prevent a potentisally negative situation from occuring otherwise the child actor might find themselves wrapped up and fully commited to something that they find to their detriment they are not entirely comfortable with.
Anonymous (0b1a) 18539
File: 1341845165162.jpg (145.68 KB, 900x704)
You do know Luli is just a fictional character, right?
While built on a true story we do not really know how the real "Luli" ended up in that situation.
If Luli was a real person - and smart - then she would have taken the bus from the get-go and never even entered Eddie's van to begin with and then… Movie over.
But to answer your question… I actually think, that in Luli's young and twisted mind she kinda loved Eddie and hence while being raped she also still loved him - but more important, she was petrified of him aswell, which is clearly shown in the following scenes.
It was too many different emotions, coupled with a bad deed from an older man that should not have happend, that Luli just could not cope with.
And she actually did learn during the movie. When they arrived at the motel, she did do the right thing and went out of the motel room. She did know, that being in there alone with Eddie would end with them in bed (properly)… And when she drove off with him, she did do the right thing again - she left the car and left Eddie - but sadly, at this time it was too late.
Luli's problem was, that she didn't have anyone to turn too… Her only ride was Eddie or Glenda, whom she thought had just left her with Eddie.
Anonymous (0b1a) 18540
File: 1341845291178.jpg (157.56 KB, 640x960)
What is CP? (Im guessing it is short for something nasty)
File: 1341845483582.jpg (57.48 KB, 245x245)
They are only talking about cheese pizza.
If a child is willing to cook cheese pizza for their boyfriends. Nothing nasty at all.
Anonymous (a78e) 18544
So showing a child naked in a movie and showing a child naked in a video is somehow completely different to you even if the child is willing in both cases.
You are drawing a distinction between the two based on nothing other than the definition of what these things are. Are they not both cases in which a childs innocence is a stake and as such should be avoided at all costs.
File: 1341845688467.png (83.44 KB, 177x196)
Wtf!? You sick bastard. How did you come up with that? Go find sick meanings for our acronyms somewhere else.
File: 1341845883191.jpg (20.13 KB, 145x151)
>>18544>So showing a child naked in a movie and showing a child naked in a video is somehow completely different to you even if the child is willing in both cases
Showing a naked child is not a problem. I have dozens of photos of me naked when I was a kid. The problem is sexualizing it. IT'S A CHILD.
You are comparing a child to a teenage actor.
Anonymous (3c12) 18547
child porn is exploitation whereas as something like the Brooke Shields Photoshoot by Gary Gross is considered artistic by many .
and is widely available on the www:http://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/2009/06/05/brooke-shields-by-gary-gross/
Anonymous (a78e) 18549
It is exploitation and sexualisation in either case you schmo.
A teenage actor, chloe when she was 14 is still a child and the family steped in and stopped her from potentially being exploited and overly sexualised by a potentially graphic rape scene.
Mr. Bean!!qVCz7BCtH. 18552
File: 1341854068922.png (201.49 KB, 500x358)
We already have a Hick discussion thread, post there you imbecile.>>3885
Check the Threads List next time.
Anonymous (0b1a) 18554
File: 1341854591067.jpg (98.26 KB, 640x541)
>>18551>The thing is girls don't suddenly become sexual at 18.
Nope, but it's ahella better number than 12 and have given most teenagers the chance to mature enough (mentally, not biologically). And you have to set the limit somewhere since you can't have "officials" walking around examinating all young teenagers and stamping them the "approval to be having sex".
It is really no different than the discussions about when you are able to:
- Be sentenced as an adult?
File: 1341854735447.jpg (111.79 KB, 453x360)
>>18553>no need for the insults
Mr. Bean!!qVCz7BCtH. 18556
File: 1341855154877.png (297.34 KB, 342x389)
Whoever clever clogs OP is should know there's already a thread for this.>insult
Anonymous (14f3) 18557
The book didn't describe what exactly happens when she gets raped either. It just states that it happens… why would the director even think of elaborating on that?
Anyways, it is so much better when a director can imply things-whether it is rape, terror, horrible monster you cannot see etc. In my opinion it shows skill to convey things without throwing it in your face.
There were some scenes they should have kept though. There was one scene with that bartender you see in the beginning of the film. He is described to be someone who always drives Luli home when the parents go nuts. He ends up making out with Luli when she gets drove home (you don't see this journey in the film).
They could have kept that scene, but instead of actual making out they could have just had the guy stop in front of her house and stare at her intently for a couple seconds then say something like 'fuck' and kick her out.
Anonymous (a78e) 18561
Yes it backed my point up quite nicely, thanks anon>>18560
I liked the movie and yes while that scene would have portrayed some of the anguish Im sure one would feel after such a trying series of events, this however is not my issue. My issue lies in the fact that she seems too happy on the bus at the end like as if now she has learnt her lesson she can assimilate perfectly back into a normal living routine suffering no ill effects mental or otherwise from the ordeal she endured. Or maybe she is just happy its all over.
Anonymous (a78e) 18563
I know man but I just feel rape would have a bit more of a profound effect on an individual but with the limited time of the movie this would be hard to convey effectively or realistically. The move on take was easier to encorperate but lets be frank unless some is some sort of emotionless husk they would not move on from an ordeal the likes of which luli ecxperienced, lets not forget she also murdered someone. Time constraints and the desire to have a happy ending resulted in what occured at the end.
Don't get me wrong I actually like the movie just confused by the pacing of the move on.
Anonymous (14f3) 18564
Yeah it's another flaw of the movie, not disagreeing with that.
You say you liked it. Without any sarcasm whatsoever are you a:
3.someone who hasn't seen many shocking movies\shows
I mean to me, they just didn't do enough to create this sense of empathy for Luli. There is this running internal monologue in the book that gives context to why she flirts with random truck driver Eddie, and everything else-they should have used a technique like that.
Think about it. It would have given the movie this running dry commentary and provided more humour to boot.
Anonymous (0b1a) 18565
File: 1341860103392.jpg (204.88 KB, 760x808)
4. A Chlobro
File: 1341863185261.gif (1.95 MB, 319x153)
I think the movie needs an extended version of the scenes her feet is on screen.
Anonymous (14f3) 18572
I find it hard to believe the director didn't have more input into the script… he's the one essentially putting it together right? The onus is on him too.
It kind of does not make sense. Lymelife was way better… it's just palpable-but that is probably because Martin Scorcesse was associated with that.
Anonymous (a78e) 18573
Well if one of the movies intentions wasn't to portray, at least in some resprect the negative and lasting effects of killing somebody and being raped then does the movie not fail on a fundamental level.
Both of these acts alone would in the real world deeply traumatise a strong willed fully developed person let alone a little innocent 14 year old country girl. To not deliver an effective representation of the consequences of lulis actions and the inhumane harm that was done to her but instead to depend on the notion that luli picks herself up again and again after many emotionally trying events portrays an unrealistic and idealised outcome to the storty presented in the movie.
She moves on too damn quick, what was she a member of the Einsatzgruppen or something. All I ask is that luli show a little bit more humanity. Sure I commend her for her fighting spirit I just don't think it was realistically delineated.
Anonymous (a78e) 18576
So you are telling me that the reason the movie took a casual approach to rape and murder was because they wanted to remain true to the moral of the book; that is lulis resolve and ability to keep on trucking in the face of great adversity, therfore in order to remain true to that they create a completely unrealistic scenario.
I don't see why the movie couln't have just changed something in this respect to make the situations playing out a tad bit more believable or relevant to what actually takes place in the real world.
The movie was bad in this respect because of the book is what Im getting from this, is that what you are saying?
Anonymous (85a1) 18577
Let's try like this.
1. The goal of the movie was to stay true to the book.
2. The script (or something maybe budget constraints) made the movie fail at representing the book fully so didn't do the book full justice.
3. The movie plot had holes, it needed 20-30 more minutes to better summarize the story in the book.
4. If you had read the book, the story would make more sense.
5. Yes, the movie should have been able to stand on it's own better without reading the book so refer to point #2 and #3 above.
Last, but most important to consider:
Realizing that the book wasn't written with your demographic in mind. You watched a movie you would have never even thought of seeing had Chloe not been in it. The book was not written for you at all, you were never even thought of as someone who would consume the story when she wrote it. It was written based on events in the Author's life as a teenager. She admits that 80% of the book really happened but leaves it up to the readers to decide what parts that is. The book was a best seller and very popular with teen girls so it's not surprising at all that you can't connect with the story.
I never claimed to connect with the story either, but because I take all of the above into careful consideration as well, I don't stress over all of that.
All I really gave a fuck about was that Chloe would play her part very well, and she did just that so what else do you want? It's obvious you or I can't become teen girls so let's just assume for them that the story is great and move on shall we?
Anonymous (a78e) 18578
You neglect the fact that I liked the movie and am not a teenage girl.
Also condoning the movies ability, or lack thereof in this instance to deal with some of its themes in a realistic manner using those points is kind of pointless really. They could have easily kept the rape and killing in yet maintained the heopefull ending without having the character appear like an Einsatzgruppen robot.
Based on the fact that the movie dealt horribly with the after effects of the rape and the killing and in many respect lulis abandonement by her parents tells me that this fits into the braket of the 20% the author never experienced.
Surely girls would feel this way too, how can one just overlook such a glaring omission.
Anonymous (14f3) 18579
The book was interesting enough to me. And I 've read alot of different things. It was realistic and pulled no punches.
A saccharine one-note romance novel would be something you could definitively say is 'not for' males.
Anonymous (85a1) 18580
What's done is done. You once again missed my point in many regards. It's unfortunate, but I can't continue talking in circles as I have other things to do. I also take it you have no intentions of reading the book. That's too bad really as it would probably alter your perception of the story quite a bit. As I've said the movie wasn't a good representation.
The ultimate take away is that Chloe was excellent in this film. I don't see you arguing that so I think we can agree to that. It's a shame the pieces out of her control didn't fall into place on the same level she was in the film or it would have been a masterpiece.>>18579
Yes I enjoyed it to, I'm just saying it wasn't written with us in mind and sales info would tend to prove that theory as well. You can't argue that it's difficult to connect on the same level as a teen girl if you have never been one and this story was written.
Anonymous (a78e) 18581
How have I missed the point when it is this:>ending was unrealistic>could have made it more realistic whilst still remaining faithfull to the moral of the book>everybody wins
Why compromise one portrayal of the story simply to remain uncompromisingly true to the other. They are different media and consequently should be approached as such.
Heres my point: they somehow don't know how to distinguish between what works in a book and what works in a movie. They needed to alter that in order for the movie to appear + flow better.
Who would this have benefitted : everybody.
No one would lose so why approach it the way they did, it seems stubborn.
Is the name of the book hick?
Anonymous (85a1) 18582
You missed the point that you needed to read the book for one.
You also missed the point where I acknowledged your opinions here:>ending was unrealistic>could have made it more realistic whilst still remaining faithfull to the moral of the book>everybody wins
and suggested you read the book.
Several times you missed the point where I suggested that the movie script had too many holes in it to offer real representation of the book so I suggested you read the book.
You also missed the point about reading the book.
Somehow you missed the point where I really don't think any of this matters because what's done is done and the real take away is that Chloe is great in the film. :)http://www.amazon.com/Hick-Andrea-Portes/dp/1932961321/
Anonymous (14f3) 18583
>>18580>Yes I enjoyed it to, I'm just saying it wasn't written with us in mind and sales info would tend to prove that theory as well. You can't argue that it's difficult to connect on the same level as a teen girl if you have never been one and this story was written.
The thing is, they could have made the movie easily relatable to anyone that is NOT a little girl.
Don't you agree that it's kind of hackish to do away with characterization and suspense building, and or some implementation of the 'heroic journey' and rely on viewers being shocked or having experienced the exact similar things in their own lives?
To be clear, I'm not saying that kind of approach is bad… it's just how some movies are made. However, the book WAS relatable.
Anonymous (a78e) 18584
File: 1341870433721.png (163.83 KB, 268x354)
Ok so after all that your point is I should read the book, seems a tad divergent and singular but whatevs.
Will do captain.
Anonymous (85a1) 18585
>>18583>Don't you agree that it's kind of hackish to do away with characterization and suspense building, and or some implementation of the 'heroic journey' and rely on viewers being shocked or having experienced the exact similar things in their own lives?
Yes, I do agree.. but my point:
could of should of would of kind of covers that.
Again, I also think that in order to add those elements back in they needed more than 95 minutes.. in fact, they needed at least 2 hours. Lots of adaptions fall into the same trap where the people paying for the project put limits on how many minutes they are paying for and there's no arguing it with them. You either comply or you run the risk of your movie never being made. So many just try to make the best of what they are given and in this case it just didn't work.
Chloe wins because it's a showpiece for her talent regardless so I'm okay with that.
Anonymous (85a1) 18586
This makes me sad because I had two important points and you only picked up on the one I repeated several times.
My other point was Chloe was great in the movie and that's really what should matter to us anyway since this is a Chloe fan site and she mastered everything within her control on this project.
Anonymous (14f3) 18587
Her acting was okay for the most part, some parts really felt off to me though…
For instance, you didn't think the scene with her and Culkin was off? Considering what happened 2 minutes before?
I thought she should have been more restrained in her joy, and that awful guitar music needed to not be there while they were playing.
Anonymous (a78e) 18588
The reason I didn't reference that is because it was never up for any sort of discussion.
Imagine that point was also implied in every ppost I made, I just did not feel the need to say it as it is self evident.
Also I really shouldn't need to read a book to understand the backstory/characters/plot/morals/themes to a movie but seeing as how you strongly recomend it I will give it a whirl.
I should really trust you implicitly considering you have read the book and I have not, as you should ostensibly have a better understanding on the context and events of the movie.
Anonymous (a78e) 18589
The movie is riddled with character inconsistencies that some people try to explain away by pigeon holing the characters, which is silly.
Thats nothing to do with chloes acting imho, Im sure she did exactly what that scene called for based off of the script. The problem was she was basing her acting on a flawed character concept, in the movie at least.
Einsatzgruppen robotesque in the lack of emotional carry over, each scene seems almost entirely emotionallyindependant of the others. Again this is not chloe fault but rather due to the ill concieved flow of the movie.
Anonymous (85a1) 18590
Wait.. hold up. You are talking about the situation and not her acting. You are reacting to the fact that the scene didn't make sense because of what just happened prior. You are assuming that when she did the scene she knew exactly where it would be placed. You are assuming that there wasn't a scene prior that got cut in final editing. What if she was directed to act exactly as she did?
It made sense to me because I assumed that it wasn't minutes after that she was cutting up but in movie magic they had fast forwarded some time later giving her enough time to finish a beer or two and start feeling loosened up and care free again.
Now given all of that, if we look at that particular scene without dinging her for what had happened prior then her acting was brilliant! In fact Derick hinted on twitter to the fact that this scene was done unscripted. Her and Rory kinda just ad hocked that scene and it's very natural.. I think it turned out brilliant, probably one of the best scene in many ways.
Anonymous (14f3) 18591
I was just noting what appeared off, not placing blame.. because who knows what goes on in production or whatever? Their jovial interaction with drunken smiles would have been fine if there was more time to develop their relationship.
Even in the book it was quite brief, but Luli saw his parents, learned that Culkin's step mother was fucking him, and realized with some sorrow that she had much more in common with him than Eddie 20 feet away.
Anonymous (85a1) 18592
>>18588>Also I really shouldn't need to read a book to understand the backstory/characters/plot/morals/themes to a movie but seeing as how you strongly recomend it I will give it a whirl.
I know this bro, hence:>>18582>Several times you missed the point where I suggested that the movie script had too many holes in it to offer real representation of the book so I suggested you read the book.
It's unfortunate, but I also suggested earlier that i's more of an IMDB type of discussion though. Please understand that I'm trying to keep more on topic of this board by discussing Chloe's part in the movie. All the other stuff really has little to do with her since she wasn't the writer or director.
Chlobro (af9c) 18596
Sorry for posting in this old tread.>>18512
The films script was altered. Chloë's family was bitching about it so they've deleted the part she really got raped.
Have you a source for this? For some reason I belive this is a truth that you or someone else have pulled out of your/their ass.